A Tart Counterpoint to Ibbitson's Irrelevance

A Tart Counterpoint to Ibbitson's Irrelevance

We at the DeSmogBlog missed Globe and Mail columnist John Ibbitson's original (and clearly goofy) column, but nobody should miss the response: a letter to the editor by Christian Schoof, research associate in glaciology, UBC Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences

“Re: Clean-Air Treaty Worthy Of Effort (April 20) by John Ibbitson: So, 90 scientists encourage the government to tackle climate change, 60 recommend the opposite. What is a layman to do?”

Clearly, the journalistic layman makes up his mind: Cleaning up air pollution will do vastly more for us than addressing climate change. Here's a parable for Mr. Ibbitson: He's flying on holiday and the plane is ½ hour out over the Atlantic. Of 150 aerospace engineers on board, 90 say that there's been a fuel leak and the plane has 40 minutes of flying time left. It's time to turn around. The other 60 say that there's no conclusive evidence of a leak and he should not turn around because it would inconvenience the CEOs in business class. Who does he listen to? The answer seems clear: He listens to the journalist who tells him he should really do something about the in-flight service.

This debate is about risk, not certainty. Mr. Ibbitson might choose to listen when more than half the experts are warning of a problem that threatens our entire species - I would. But maybe he cares more about that holiday in Europe.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.